

Looming large in every FCPA settlement negotiation with the government is the reporting requirements the company will be subject to going forward.  Historically, companies had only two options at the negotiating table – plead for no future reporting to be required or accept an onerous and expensive multi-year compliance monitorship.  Thanks, in part, to the increased sophistication of many in-house compliance programs, the government is embracing new and creative reporting obligations, leaving room for companies to negotiate tailored solutions.  How can companies negotiate an agreement that meets the government’s need to decrease recidivism while limiting the uncertainty, invasiveness and expense of extensive reporting requirements?  This article, the first in a three-part series, examines precedent, practice and trends in post-settlement FCPA reporting obligations; discusses the shift to less traditional forms of reporting; explains the process by which reporting obligations are created; and describes the mechanics of the most intrusive types of reporting: traditional monitorship and self-reporting.  The second article in this series will discuss real-world examples of innovative reporting requirements and recommend specific strategies companies can use to negotiate the most beneficial reporting requirements possible.  The third article will provide advice on choosing the best possible monitor and tactics for limiting the expenses of a monitorship.

To read the full article

Continue reading your article with an ACR subscription.